freeman Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I like the look of vintage documentaries and for me (having shot on a gh2 and gh4 for all of my personal and client work) I have found lenses to be the most significant decider in the "look" of any of my films. All of the "look" in this clip is because of the lens, I used an Angenieux 12-120 from the late 60s: Grading is necessary and especially with these old lenses if you want to bring back some contrast. I have been using film convert (fcpx plugin) lately and really liking the grain in that emulator, and also the relative speed I can get a decent look going. This short with the rally cars was graded with a LUT and some individual tweaks (it was before I purchased film convert) but I find film converts grain to really add a nice layer in that "film" look. I would say though the lens is where you start, and going back a couple decades gets you a look thats not so common anymore. Ed_David and webrunner5 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyFan12 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 On 6/6/2017 at 3:07 AM, odie said: average footage becomes ..spectacular and easy with kodak film.. (with very little money) that's why I love it I wasn't being snarky before. I'm trying to budget for a 16mm shoot. But the scanning fees are so high and support gear for it and monitoring equipment seems impossible... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odie Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 what are you shooting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odie Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 On 6/8/2017 at 11:21 AM, HockeyFan12 said: I wasn't being snarky before. I'm trying to budget for a 16mm shoot. But the scanning fees are so high and support gear for it and monitoring equipment seems impossible... i just started a thread on this but it disappeared..if it disappears again I'll PM you..but it's dirt cheap because of prices of cameras and hybrid shooting with digital cameras and huge savings on post..the end result is a project that really stands out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyFan12 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 6 hours ago, odie said: i just started a thread on this but it disappeared..if it disappears again I'll PM you..but it's dirt cheap because of prices of cameras and hybrid shooting with digital cameras and huge savings on post..the end result is a project that really stands out What about the cost of film and, in particular, film scans? The scans always seem to be the "gotcha" to me. I have access to an SRII. What do you mean by hybrid shooting? I agree that it's easy to sneak a little digital into something shot on film but difficult to replicate the look of film for an entire project if that's what you mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odie Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 On 6/22/2017 at 8:40 AM, HockeyFan12 said: What about the cost of film and, in particular, film scans? The scans always seem to be the "gotcha" to me. I have access to an SRII. What do you mean by hybrid shooting? I agree that it's easy to sneak a little digital into something shot on film but difficult to replicate the look of film for an entire project if that's what you mean. take advantage of kodak film within your budget...(yes you can get cameras for free from camera houses and friends) if you can only budget 3 rolls then shoot those rolls where it best suits the spot or film..(if you can shoot the entire project on film that's great .. feature films have been shot for under 5 thousand) digital cameras helps keep cost down when you don't have the budget(HYBRID SHOOTING) and knowing that you have a back up...which is why this is the best time ever to film on film the cost of scanning and developing is about the same as the cost of the film (also you will save a lot of money and time on post coloring ) check out the kodak labs and which one is near you... Laboratories Directory | Motion Picture Film - Kodak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyFan12 Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 The last feature I was on that shot 35mm had a very low shooting ratio, got a killer deal from Kodak, and used horrible low quality scans. I think the added cost of shooting film (despite a virtually free camera) was nearly $200k. This was the ABSOLUTE cheapest deal around at the time, and prices have gone up. I just can't figure out how you're shooting that cheaply. They also shot with a digital b cam for a pretty substantial part of the shoot. I find lab fees and scans significantly more expensive than film stock if you want high quality 2k scans. What labs are you using that will develop and 2k scan 400 feet of 16mm for $200? I've yet to find any but every time I budgeted it out shooting on 16mm adds at least a few thousand dollars to the budget for a 10-minute short, and maybe much more. I agree having a digital b cam is smart. That said, for a short film, a few thousand dollars is not much, but difficult to stomach when it's all out of pocket and with no hope of a financial return. Grimor 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcs Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 4 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said: The last feature I was on that shot 35mm had a very low shooting ratio, got a killer deal from Kodak, and used horrible low quality scans. I think the added cost of shooting film (despite a virtually free camera) was nearly $200k. This was the ABSOLUTE cheapest deal around at the time, and prices have gone up. I just can't figure out how you're shooting that cheaply. They also shot with a digital b cam for a pretty substantial part of the shoot. I find lab fees and scans significantly more expensive than film stock if you want high quality 2k scans. What labs are you using that will develop and 2k scan 400 feet of 16mm for $200? I've yet to find any but every time I budgeted it out shooting on 16mm adds at least a few thousand dollars to the budget for a 10-minute short, and maybe much more. I agree having a digital b cam is smart. That said, for a short film, a few thousand dollars is not much, but difficult to stomach when it's all out of pocket and with no hope of a financial return. A brand new Cintel 35mm scanner is $30k: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/cintel (+$1500 for 16mm). Perhaps there are deals on the used market for film scanners... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyFan12 Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 That's not much money, but then you still need someone to operate the scanner and you still have development costs. That's really not bad though. Maybe it is getting cheaper. It's been a while since I looked into this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odie Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 On 6/24/2017 at 10:33 PM, HockeyFan12 said: The last feature I was on that shot 35mm had a very low shooting ratio, got a killer deal from Kodak, and used horrible low quality scans. I think the added cost of shooting film (despite a virtually free camera) was nearly $200k. This was the ABSOLUTE cheapest deal around at the time, and prices have gone up. I just can't figure out how you're shooting that cheaply. They also shot with a digital b cam for a pretty substantial part of the shoot. I find lab fees and scans significantly more expensive than film stock if you want high quality 2k scans. What labs are you using that will develop and 2k scan 400 feet of 16mm for $200? I've yet to find any but every time I budgeted it out shooting on 16mm adds at least a few thousand dollars to the budget for a 10-minute short, and maybe much more. I agree having a digital b cam is smart. That said, for a short film, a few thousand dollars is not much, but difficult to stomach when it's all out of pocket and with no hope of a financial return. who did the scan on that film...? Who was your DP? If a lab does a bad scan (it's rare)..but they'll do it again for free. 200k was the budget of the completed movie? the latest quote I got for two 400 rolls of 35mm and 3 rolls of super 16mm was 700 dollars for developing and top pro scan. Just call one of the kodak labs... if you're nervous start with one roll of film...it's cheap...you can make a full length movie with super 16mm for under 5 thousand jcs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyFan12 Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 I think it was Fotokem or one of their competitors I think. We saved money by going with a cheaper session (first light rather than best light) and a cheaper delivery format is what I was referring to, lower quality processing and scan. We were basically grading proxies. They wanted $50k extra for a proper scan, which would have been worth it, but it wasn't in the budget and the look of the film suffered for it, though I think we did well with what we had. The increase in budget for shooting film rather than video was between $100-$200k. I believe the budget for the feature was just under $1 million. I don't know more, I wasn't a producer on it, just worked in camera department. That does seem like a very good price. But even at $200 for a roll of 16mm film and $200 for development and scan (lower than I've ever seen available, but consistent with what you suggest) that's $400 for ten minutes of footage (inevitably the ends don't get used, or it would be 11 minutes). At a very conservative shooting ratio of 15:1, a 100 minute feature would cost $60,000 extra at those very low rates (which I still have yet to find). I agree, I have seen small features shot competently for under $500k and so $560k isn't that much more. But the extra costs in terms of support gear, monitoring, and lighting (500 ISO film is about as clean as 3200 ISO digital, you have a ton of over but your under is just dreadful) push things up much higher. I just can't figure out the math. Even if everyone is working for free, I can't imagine a budget under $200k for a 16mm feature. I know the story about Primer, but that's sort of the extreme example of a 1:1 shooting ratio and shooting in someone's garage. 99% of stories won't work with those limitations and the budget was much higher than that once it was polished up for a salable deliverable. What features have you shot on 16mm for under $5k? Were they small stories like that or were you able to scale up efficiently beyond that? Did you pay the crew? What gear did G&E gear and how big was the crew? I still can't do the math. I used to shoot a fair amount of 16mm (for student films and stuff, never professionally), and even back in those days when film was cheap it was still hundreds of dollars extra for a short exercise versus shooting digitally. Nevertheless, for the money, film is still a great deal and I like your idea of using a digital b camera sparingly. I still plan to shoot my next short on film, but I'm budgeting a few thousand dollars extra just for a 10-minute short and planning to shoot with a tiny tiny ratio. odie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 Can you still buy short ends? That used to be a great way to save on film costs, of course you were limited to what stock they had available at the time. odie and webrunner5 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyFan12 Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 I'm not sure if there are any widely available anymore but I know you can (know of someone who bought 65mm short ends, or had them given to him). Helps to know someone who knows someone I'm sure. While I can't figure out the math maybe just because I don't believe in a 1:1 shooting ratio for a feature, shooting film does seem more affordable than I realized. Gonna have to get some quotes on development and scans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odie Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 On 6/25/2017 at 11:39 PM, mercer said: Can you still buy short ends? That used to be a great way to save on film costs, of course you were limited to what stock they had available at the time. yes..and it's really cheap (for a no budget filmmaker it's great) with short ends you can now film in 35mm with a super 16mm budget.. also Panavision has super deals on 35mm cameras..and sometimes will sponsor you .. mercer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odie Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 On 6/25/2017 at 11:22 PM, HockeyFan12 said: I think it was Fotokem or one of their competitors I think. We saved money by going with a cheaper session (first light rather than best light) and a cheaper delivery format is what I was referring to, lower quality processing and scan. We were basically grading proxies. They wanted $50k extra for a proper scan, which would have been worth it, but it wasn't in the budget and the look of the film suffered for it, though I think we did well with what we had. The increase in budget for shooting film rather than video was between $100-$200k. I believe the budget for the feature was just under $1 million. I don't know more, I wasn't a producer on it, just worked in camera department. That does seem like a very good price. But even at $200 for a roll of 16mm film and $200 for development and scan (lower than I've ever seen available, but consistent with what you suggest) that's $400 for ten minutes of footage (inevitably the ends don't get used, or it would be 11 minutes). At a very conservative shooting ratio of 15:1, a 100 minute feature would cost $60,000 extra at those very low rates (which I still have yet to find). I agree, I have seen small features shot competently for under $500k and so $560k isn't that much more. But the extra costs in terms of support gear, monitoring, and lighting (500 ISO film is about as clean as 3200 ISO digital, you have a ton of over but your under is just dreadful) push things up much higher. I just can't figure out the math. Even if everyone is working for free, I can't imagine a budget under $200k for a 16mm feature. I know the story about Primer, but that's sort of the extreme example of a 1:1 shooting ratio and shooting in someone's garage. 99% of stories won't work with those limitations and the budget was much higher than that once it was polished up for a salable deliverable. What features have you shot on 16mm for under $5k? Were they small stories like that or were you able to scale up efficiently beyond that? Did you pay the crew? What gear did G&E gear and how big was the crew? I still can't do the math. I used to shoot a fair amount of 16mm (for student films and stuff, never professionally), and even back in those days when film was cheap it was still hundreds of dollars extra for a short exercise versus shooting digitally. Nevertheless, for the money, film is still a great deal and I like your idea of using a digital b camera sparingly. I still plan to shoot my next short on film, but I'm budgeting a few thousand dollars extra just for a 10-minute short and planning to shoot with a tiny tiny ratio. .... for no budget film shooting....post production...first light is enough ..it's amazing...you don't need more...and the $$$ saved on color timing...(you don't need any) with the time and money you save take a vacation ...have a fun shoot.. this is from Nolan's film...you get to put this on your poster too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.